Oooo dont remind me, i almost had a s#it fit when i saw that in theatres...and i can also guarantee that i ruined the end of that movie for just about anyone in earrange because of the lameness of the end.

But ya i hope they go the route of just his closest confidants knowing about his secret, would be lame if it was all over the place. go the classic 'ironman works for me' gimmick, always loved it in the comics and cartoons.

That's how I'm hoping they keep it in the film. Just keep him as an employee of Stark Industries/Stark's 'bodyguard'.

yeah they can even pull out the stunt where Rhodey gets up in there to stand beside Stark in public

perfect public figure ploy pulled in the comics....at one point this helped Toney Protect his enterprise when Iron Man had to go Rouge...like in the Iron Wars deal...where Hammer stole and sold his tech.

__________________
100 chimps working in unison to create the next great American Novel... It was the best of times it..... it was the blurst of times??? You have to love Mr. Burns.

This is one aspect of IM1 that always bugged me. I am ok with his identity being revealed eventually but I kinda wanted him to keep it secret for at least a couple movies. On the other hand, his whole bodyguard thing in the comics doesn't help much since even if nobody knows he's in the suit they all still know that Iron Man works for him. Peter Parker gets hunted down by villains just for being known as the guy who takes Spider-man's pictures. But Stark would actually get the blame for everything Iron Man does since he's his employer.

Still, having no secret ID does remove one of the more interesting aspects of Tony's dual nature: that being of how a lot of the public doesn't like him based on his history yet they all love Iron Man and the fact that they don't know they're the same person is an intriguing notion. The Extremis comic touched upon this. You have all the youth/lefty types out in front of Stark Industries protesting him since he's a defense contractor and the military is 'EVIL' in their eyes yet as soon as they see Iron Man flying away they cheer him. We can't explore any of that now without a reboot.

Revealing he was Iron Man was a bold and brilliant move by Favreau. Tony Stark is none of the schmucks we have above. Going by everything Danny Fingeroth wrote in his book 'Superman on the Couch', Tony Stark has none of the traits that those guys have. He's not an orphan because he lost his parents when he was already a young adult. He was already recognised as a genius and became a flambouyant captain of industry. He's not an immigrant/refugee character like Superman. He doesn't have to hide his identity to fit in.

Another reason why it was better to reveal himself was because he is famous and controversial as a war profiteer. We no longer give complete trust to those in a higher social status or serve a religious institution, like priests. We no longer trust some people who operate the banks.

People who actually do the right and noble thing get crucified. We call them 'whisteblowers' or worse - snitches. (Personally I'd gladly snitch on anybody who's done wrong. You can flush that mafia family value crap to hell.) These are guys like Bradley Manning, who get put into prison although he leaked the info to Wikileaks. Guys like Snowden who get called 'traitor' by his own government, even when they're exposed for wrongdoings. Around the world reporters are getting killed by the criminals they report about and their societies can't protect them or avenge them.

So when a character like Tony Stark reveals himself to be a superhero, it brings a lot of faith back into humanity. In fact, humanity is probably why all those passengers in the train haven't revealed Peter Parker's identity back in Spider-Man 2. They were decent and appreciative enough to keep his identity secret.

__________________

If there's one thing you can learn from Game of Thrones is this important lesson:

I think Iron Man and Thor having to be secret identities in the comics were some of the worst aspects of their comics, there's just no reason to do so besides going with the usual superhero schtick. Not to mention his whole "bodyguard" thing is kind of dumb and kind of obvious.

What Favreau did was also a briliant move to show that Iron Man was different, and to close the film itself.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by childeroland

Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?

I think Iron Man and Thor having to be secret identities in the comics were some of the worst aspects of their comics, there's just no reason to do so besides going with the usual superhero schtick. Not to mention his whole "bodyguard" thing is kind of dumb and kind of obvious.

What Favreau did was also a briliant move to show that Iron Man was different, and to close the film itself.